Buster Olney misses the point

[Lucky Jim]

I understand, and well put. However, back in math class (way back when) and in law school (more recently) I remember you got credit for a correct answer and credit for showing the work/analysis leading to that. Olney falls drastically short on the latter, and he does so on a regular basis.

I'm not looking for all the nice stuff you talk about -- that's a completely different type of analysis which has its place on sites like BP (as you point out). I'm just looking for a paragraph or so that shows ANY sort of meaningful thought. Why is WAS in on Teix? Why is BAL? Is there a good reason for it? Can I make an argument for it? Whay about the larger question of competitive team vs. non-competitive team? Does it ever make sense for a non-competititve team to pay for a superstar? Does the length of the contract come into play? Should it?

I don't get the sense he looked at many, if any, of the above issues. Each could produce at least one sentence that could provide the reader with some new insight. Again, maybe I'm expecting too much -- and regardless of ESPN is or isn't supposed to be, they hold themselves out as specialists. They have "insider" pieces that supposedly give premium content and analysis (some of it does -- and you have to pay for it). They have reporters on site at the winter meetings, and countdowns to trade deadlines with tons of analysis (or at least lip service) from former players, managers and current writers on a nightly basis, in-season. I don't think it's asking too much to read something I couldn't find written in the Observer (ND student newspaper).

Excellent point, as well. I let my own fetishes get in the way sometimes. You really are looking for a New Yorker-quality analysis here, and that's understandable. Of course, the fact remains that these guys are spread too thin (and frankly, don't have the talent) to do that.

Say what you will about Michael Lewis...but he really changed the way we think about these things. Need not be wonky, but the decisions have to be made to seem compelling.

Olney's article is simplistic, framing the decision as a binary one, rather than a decision whose correctness falls along a continuum that depends on a lot of different variables.

For framing it that way, he should be criticized. To be sure.

Fact is - and this is NOT a "anyone could be GM" argument - many of us would, from an analytic and stylistic standpoint - be better at Olney's job (and others) than they are. Of course, these guys have built up so many contacts and whatnot that it's impossible to compete.

A shame - we all seek insight and analysis, and what they give us is, essentially, the baseball equivalent of TMZ.

[geschinger]

This is all very simple:

1) You only sign Tex to a contract where you can continue to put money into the draft, development, other FA and keeping their own...When the money hits the level that these things halt, then you say no thanks.

Hopefully that is the case... I do find it a bit troubling when I read that if MacPhail had his way we probably would have already walked away. That tells me that from a budgetary standpoint the offer to Teix may be limiting other areas. Am I wrong to be concerned if it is true that we're still in the Teix sweepstakes past the point where MacPhail thought it made sense?

3) We are signing Tex for 8-10 years, not 2009...anyone looking at signing Tex as a poor short term move is correct but they are also completely absurd in looking at only the short term.

I see it as more of a poor long term move because it's too many years at too high a salary.

[Lucky Jim]

Yeah - my real issue is the two-three years of $20m salary that gets "wasted" while we don't contend because we speculate there won't be an exact replacement on the market. That's Olney's best point: that at least $40m of Teix's value is as a "bauble" while we wait to (theoretically) contend.

But if an adequate replacement could be purchased in two years, while the excess, say, $70m is invested elsewhere, in high-ceiling, low-risk prospects, then who cares?

In other words, we're assuming a lot - none of which I think warrants our assumptions.

[twoBshorty]

Good Lord. That is just awful. I'm amazed that he thinks that.

If you're trying to think of a way to make it sound reasonable, you could think that he meant, "It would be better for baseball than him signing with the Yankees because it would mean one team did not spent $400 million on free agents in one offseason, which is AWFUL for baseball."

Yeah, it doesn't sound convincing to me, either. But hey, he could have meant that! I'm trying. . .

[TakebackOPACY]

Really? Cause the Rays won last year without paying the big bucks to attract talent.

And if they had spent $20m/yr on a free agent a few years earlier to build around Carl Crawford, Rocco Baldelli, and company along with the soon to arrive Delmon Young, BJ Upton, and company, then they would now be without David Price and perhaps without Evan Longoria.

[Stotle]

And if they had spent $20m/yr on a free agent a few years earlier to build around the up and coming Delmon Young, BJ Upton, and company, then they would now be without David Price and perhaps without Evan Longoria.

I don't agree with this, necessarily. This is supposing that a FO would issue such a contract knowing that it would prevent them from signing their young talent down the line.

Also, both draft picks were protected, right?

[zff4]

It is more prudent to go in big with an all-in investment when it's more directed, and that investment will have an immediate effect on whether a team competes or not.

What was Branch Rickey's slogan? "Trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late."

Maybe there's an occasional corollary: "Sometimes it's better to try and acquire that piece too early than too late."

[Ruzious]

I think the wise old saying goes - Better to get an outstanding player in his prime than to keep getting mediocre players and stink every year.

Grasshopper.

[Lucky Jim]

What was Branch Rickey's slogan? "Trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late."

Maybe there's an occasional corollary: "Sometimes it's better to try and acquire that piece too early than too late."

Maybe. Arguably, however, FA is almost always too late.

[TakebackOPACY]

I don't agree with this, necessarily. This is supposing that a FO would issue such a contract knowing that it would prevent them from signing their young talent down the line.

Also, both draft picks were protected, right?

My point was off the cuff. The point is that they likely wouldn't have been bad enough to get those guys. They would've spent perhaps $40m+ for example (the first two years of paying this contract while being out of contention). One small sacrifice for that player that noone ever would've identified is that their improvement, while small enough to prevent them from getting into contention, was big enough to take away the opportunity to draft at the top. They would've likely had two other players, but slightly further down the draft board.

I am NOT arguing that the O's should constantly form their startegy based on wild guesses at the minor changes in what future opportunities might or might not come along.

I am JUST saying that these subtle changes exist. A bad team with $20m+ additional funds they are willing to spend MIGHT (or might not) be closer to contention than an okay team who has spent much of their budget. And draft position is one more subtle reason for that.

[JTrea81]

Really? Cause the Rays won last year without paying the big bucks to attract talent.

The Rays also had 10 years to put their scouting and development to where it is today. You want to wait 8-10 more years to win? I don't.

[olehippi]

Obviously Teixeira can't single-handedly carry the O's to contention, but I think Olney's piece was a touch condescending in suggesting that we shouldn't even try improving the team....now. But 2-3 years from now, when we're a better team, is OK? I totally miss the logic of this argument mostly because 2-3 years from now, when we have more quality players around him, Teixeira will still be in his prime.

[davearm]

I don't agree with this, necessarily. This is supposing that a FO would issue such a contract knowing that it would prevent them from signing their young talent down the line.

Also, both draft picks were protected, right?

I took that to mean that the Rays wouldn't have had the high picks needed to take those guys, but I could be mistaken.

$20M FA = a handful more wins = lower draft picks by a few slots.

The point was certainly ambiguous, though, and that interpretation could be off.

[alskor]

What was Branch Rickey's slogan? "Trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late."

Maybe there's an occasional corollary: "Sometimes it's better to try and acquire that piece too early than too late."

How does that make sense? We have no idea what the needs of the 2012 O's will be - BUT if we dont sign Tex now we will be better equipped to address them.

What your corollary is proposing is something like buying an engagement ring in case you meet a chick soon... or buying a couch set and hoping it fits whatever house you end up buying. Those things could work out for you - but its not a smart investment by any means.

One more example of people coming to a conclusion (ie. I want Tex!!! We NEED Tex!!!) and then ignoring any data that doesnt support that conclusion. Been a lot of that going around here if you ask me...

[Stotle]

I took that to mean that the Rays wouldn't have had the high picks needed to take those guys, but I could be mistaken.

$20M FA = a handful more wins = lower draft picks by a few slots.

The point was certainly ambiguous, though, and that interpretation could be off.

Ahhhh. Got it. Haven't looked it up, but I believe the Rays were the worst aroud by a fair amount. Not sure a $20mio FA changes their draft fortunes by that much. But who knows...?